This article is written by Shambhavi Shree, a student of KIIT School of Law, Bhubaneswar.

Case Number 

Criminal Appeal No. 1076 of 1999

Equivalent Citation

AIR (2002)3 SCC 475


Honorable Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi and the Honorable Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan.

Decided on

27th February 2002

Relevant Act/Section

  • Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 states that while examination of the accused person he/she has the power to establish his innocence.
  • Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 says that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
  • Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states that a person’s house-trespass to cause hurt, wrongful restraint, assault shall be punishable with the imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and also be liable to fine.

Brief Facts and Procedural History

  • Bai Ubadi (deceased) was residing at Dadiapada, Navinagri with her husband. She rented another house on lease for starting the factory business to the complainant Saiyed Khan Majid Khan (PW 2). In this case, the appellant was the husband of the deceased person with whom she was living for 8 years. Two months before the occurrence of this incident there was a record in which the appellant attempted to kill his wife with an axe. Therefore she filed a complaint before the police station. 
  • The incident occurred on 7th August 1984 in front of the witnesses Nayana (PW 9) and Shruti (PW 10) when the appellant straightly went to the house of PW 2 and demanded his clothes from the deceased. When she denied then the appellant gave a blow with a dagger pulled out from his waist on the stomach of the deceased. He continued to give repeated blows with that dagger to which she received a total of 35 injuries and she died on spot. 
  • Two people saw the appellant running away from the house of the complainant with a dagger. Immediately within half an hour the complainant (PW 2) filed a complaint before the police and reported about the offence that took place in which he was an eye-witness. A post-mortem report and document of Panchnama was recorded by the police. 
  • On 8th August 1984, the appellant appeared before the police station with the weapon of offence. He was having a similar blood group to that of the deceased in his clothes and dagger when he appeared before the police.
  • There were three witnesses in which PW 2 supported and the rest two were declared hostile witnesses as they did not saw the incidence. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. He stated that he was not involved in this case and was being falsely accused. 

Issues before the Court

  1. Why the complainant (PW 2) did not respond when the appellant was committing the offence?
  2. Whether there was any relationship between the deceased and the complainant?

The Decision of the Court

  • The Trial Court stated that the statement given by PW 2 could not be relied upon. It was doubted that the relation between the deceased and PW 2 was an indication of partisanship. It was seen that the deceased and the complainant were sharing an intimate relationship. When the appellant was giving repeated blows with the dagger to the deceased then PW 2 did not interrupt to stop him. And he was unable to mention the names in the FIR of the people who gathered after the incident took place.
  • The High court set aside the judgment given by the Trial Court and focused on appreciating and analyzing the evidence of the witness stating that the complainant without any loss of time within half an hour reported the incident to the police station. They further stated that the appellant trespassed the house of the complainant and committed the murder. The place of the occurrence suggests that the complainant is the only natural witness of the incident.



Latest Posts


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *